Penalty under section 270A fails without clear misreporting limb and cannot rest on ad hoc disallowances or email-only notices.

Penalty under section 270A was held unsustainable because the order did not identify the specific limb of misreporting under section 270A(9), and the additions relied on ad hoc disallowance and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), which by themselves did not establish misreporting of income. The non-appearance before the CIT(A) was also not treated as deliberate default because notices were issued only by email despite the assessee's refusal of email communication. On these facts, the penalty was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained when the penalty order did not specify the exact limb of misreporting under section 270A(9) and the additions were based on ad hoc disallowance and disallowance under section 40(a)(ia); and whether the appellate proceedings were vitiated where notices were issued only through email despite the assessee's refusal of email communication.

Analysis: The penalty provision under section 270A contains distinct categories of misreporting, and invocation of the higher rate of penalty requires a clear finding as to the specific clause attracted. The assessment additions in this case arose from disallowance of loading and unloading charges for want of corroborative particulars and disallowance of transportation charges for alleged non-deduction of tax at source. Such disallowances, by themselves, did not establish misreporting of income. The penalty order also failed to identify which clause of section 270A(9) was satisfied. As to the appellate stage, notices were issued only by email despite the assessee having opted against email communication, so the non-appearance before the CIT(A) could not be treated as deliberate default.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 270A was not sustainable and was liable to be deleted; the assessee's appeal succeeded.

---